The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1887-04-27
Married Uoluen's Contracts.

The case Of Aultman, Taylor * Co. VS..
J. \. Rush and Eugenia j. Rush, in
which the Supreme Court fled its de-
cision last Wednesday night, IS very in
portant ii It's bearing upon the liabilities
OF married women. The Columbia CORE
sponGence OF the News and Courier gives
the following synopsis of the opinion:
The action was founded on Two notes
given by defendant and his wife for the
purchase OF a steam engine. These notes
were secured by a mortgage Oh q tract
of land belonging to the separate estate
of the wife, which mortgage was exc
cuted by the wife, her husband joining
therein. Two defeuces were put mp.
First, breach Of contract; second, no
liability on the part OF the wife Oh the
notes and mortgage, she being a mar
ried woman. The master in equity, to
whom the case was referred, reported
that there was no breach Of the contract.
III this report the Circuit Judge (tiud-
SOM -concurred. The master also re-
ported the defendants wife liable, both
by the terms of the statute and because
the contract w&s for the benefit OF heT
separate estate The Circuit Judge did
not concur in the last branch OF this see
ond section OF the report, but sustained
the master in the first, holding that the
liability OF the vile was fixed by the
mortgage, and he ordered a foreclosure.
The Supreme Court says: 'sihe main
question il the case IS as 10 the liability
OF the wife on her mortgage, or rather
the liability Of her separate estate for a
debt contracted by her husband, to
which sic Was a party, ard to secure
which SIZE executed the mortgage IL
question, although the said deDtwas not
contracted for the benefit OF her separate
estate. This brings up sQUareiy the
question whether a married woman can
mortgage her separate estate for debt
rot contracted for It's benefit. :"
The boundary of the question is the
Constitution and the Act Of the Legisla-
turc upon the subjec. of the rights o.
| married women. . The Court then pro-
ceetis to examine at length the constitU-
tional provisions contained II Article
Il, Section s, as follows: "Ihe real and
personal property OF L married woman
held at the tune OF her marriage, or that
which Size may thereafter acquire either
| by giG:, grant, inhcritaLce, devise OF
Otherwise, &:.:.!i not De subject 10 levy
! and sale Tor her husbands debts, b,.:
Shal be held rs !4er separate property
and may be Dcqueittned, devisot. o.
alienated by her the same rs if she were
unmarried The provisions ui law
touching upon this question arc also eA-
haustirely discussed and tie Court &C.
c;des that tie married woman las not
he right 10 mortgage hcr separate estate
lor a debt not contracted for its benefit.
Ike judgment OF the supreme Court is
that the Judgment OF the Circuit Cour:
be reversed AID that the case bc remand
cd with leave to piaiDtltI to apply below
for Judgment against the defendant, j.
y. Rush, for the amount due on th>
note Chief j9st!cc Sampson delivered
The opinion. Justice -sIc!yer lies :. lis,
sentlnG opinion.
The practice OF having q wites sepa.
rate estate mortgaged to secure he. has.
bands debts has been very prevalent Il
South Carolina and this decision vii
upset it abruptly.
-----x,-z-- --Sc-,z=------